I haven't thought much about book burning since middle school, so I guess my feelings are a little distant concerning this issue, but a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction "BOOK BURNING BAD!"... but it's usually done as censorship, isn't it? In the past, that's all it COULD be. But Thunderf00t's book-burning was symbolism. A statement. And it was structured so that it could not possibly function as a censoring act. In this light, I fully support it.
I am so disappointed I missed this as I would have loved to be there, and meet those who I consider heroes. AronRa and Richard Dawkins do so much for us atheists.
AronRa, What about the effectiveness of film? Ben Stein shamelessly pushed intelligent design with "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Is that just another case of Hollywood funding religious movies or was there something deeper and more sinister involved?
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of the law of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature. Read my popular Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. There are no fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
An excellent discussion i watched from part 1 to 7. To put my "positive language" into it, Pro-evidence, Yes to free thought, Pro-freedom, pro-critical thinking, pro-morals without faith, pro-rights, and pro-accountability. Which i think all are parts of the "atheist movement" and that we can all get behind that don't state right out that religion is non-sense or give a false impression of what most of us are really for.
I also love the irony of your own side being able to point out your mistakes more than the theists. ^^
Here they are banging against the wall of our arguments for decades, not being able to move a brick, and in the meantime we're knocking our own arguments down and rebuilding them three times over. :P
@AronRa Sorry my mistake it's in part 6 I just missed it somehow. Thanks for replying though! (for the record I was the one who asked Tom about what he meant by weak atheist)
@NephllimFree aww, how disappointing... I was hoping you were the real neph, been wanting to clown that fool ever since he blocked me from his channel.
Once again Skepchic steps in it up to her thigh. /sigh Responding with physical violence to a drawing, no matter what that drawing is, proves the point. Period. Nothing else need be said. How many christians and muslims have responded with violence and property destruction over art they didn't like? I can think of at least one instance for both. Now, how many atheists and agnostics have responded in kind to art they don't like BECAUSE OF their disbelief? Zero.
I think Tf00t is getting more hate because he said he’s happy to lie for atheism then for burring the hardrive which I though was a beautiful bit of satirical comedy. I think it since a large number of the atheists on this sight talk about lies for Jebus as what deconverted them.
Every single Atheist debate and seminar, Science lecture and event, He is there, in the background, on a panel, behind a podium or in the audience. It's unreal. I'm beginning to doubt Atheism in favour of the idea that Richard Dawkins is God.
It shows the lack of self esteem these guests have; to figure that 'the only person who can think is an atheist. ' Being there are many questions that I have posed to Aron Ra and to the likes of a Richard Dawkins; questions "us scientists" who are actually involved in epistemology have never come to conclusions on yet, but Richard Dawkins and his great Atheist posse come to say it is all facts,
Not one time: have I seen a known regulator scientific fact that you have built off of
To Aron Ra's credit and a couple other Atheist sites that I peruse from time to time. I appreciate that I have never been blocked or what else from your channel for my opposing view. As' I am a rare kind of Christian bird, as a Christian traveled theologian and a scientist who also studies in areas of Physics, quantum mechanics, philosophy, to any area hearkening one's intrinsic tendency.
I appreciate that Aron Ra. My mind has been changed for the better without the proclivity of Atheism.
Quite right. Since when does speech or the written word however ill considered deserve a response of violence. Salmun Rushdie a subject of a country threatened by a Theocratic state. It should have elicited an economic embargo by the free world not tolerance of intolerance.
One of the points that Thunderf00t made was that burning books nowadays isn't the seriously distructive act that it was in the past, because other copies of the book are still freely available. Burning the Qur'an in 2011 does not censor the Qur'an. A book burning in the information age can only be symbolic.
On atheists correcting each others' errors, case in point: when Melchiorre erroneously cited Malcolm X as the founder of the Black Panther Party, the YouTube commenters pounced on it immediately.
... from about the age of seven. this view held sway for centuries, with child prostitution remaining for many years until (western) society had developed to a point where they decided, just like with slavery, that it was morally wrong. My final point being Mohammed was not a paedophile because at the time he would not have viewed his child bride as a child. This only reinforces the view that the Qur'an (as well as all other holy books) are incredibly shitty things to base your morals off of.
That's the same logic christians use to defend slavery in the bible. I don't think it truly matters whether it was accepted in their society or not, does it? It's not as if the actual action has changed over time. From our view it's still immoral.
Besides, we're talking about a guy who's supposedly a prophet, who knows what God thinks or something. One must wonder why he fits so closely to the barbarism of the time like everyone else if he was meant to be special.
I don't think totally fair criticism of Mohammed to say he was a paedophile. By modern standards he surely was but the key word being 'modern'. This is because childhood and under age sex are both very recent concepts coming about only 150 years or so ago. For centuries in many civilisations, children were viewed as just small adults from a very young age, girls from about the age they could simply physically have sex. This is seen in Ancient Greek society with girls entering prostitution...
Atheist need to start their own religion, with AronRa as the Epop leader (he needs the money). We can keep God is Love, and going to Heaven, Treat others as you want them to treat you, donate to charity, be a good socialist, and basically re-create a better good natured god in our own image. Sunday to be a day of discovery of new things in science, with institutions of learning, like schools, museums, and the whole Universe a place for worship.
@FreeOneSolo Actually seeing as you're such a moron I'll spell it out for you. You hero worship condell because you're a fool. You disgusting lying coward. Is that clear enough for you now dunce?
I enjoyed this series immensely, excellent discussion and great points. The internet is the both toughest and easiest forum in which to disseminate an idea. It depends on what format you choose. With live streaming channels becoming more mainstream as bandwidth and networks mature, every dog can have his/her own internet TV channel.
@Vortex42 Yes. I agree. If Mohammed was alive today we would all consider him a pedophile. So, to comment on that is not hateful I think. Its just a sound objection to the morals of the historical figure Mohammed, who is still supposed to be a role model for Muslims living now.
Agreed, good points were made, and I agree that the Internet is a great resource, which like Thunderf00t says, is where religions go to die.
As for the youtude community, I wonder it there is a way to collect the different contributors into something like channels as Vimeo does, and if failing that, maybe something outside of YT that can serve as a directory or review or some resource that helps people find the good stuff here.
@zloben9000 - dude, it's not so much haters as critics, and making fun of idiots can be fun and can help make a point, that's not the reason for all this. Suppose these people met to discuss ways to get the message out about a fairies and gnomes-based religion that holds and promotes dangerous and barbaric practices, would that be a hater thing? But if instead they went after actual, current religions for the same reasons, would that be hate?
@Prelude610 Oh yeaaa Religion "promotes dangerous and barbaric practices".
I know you live in the 12th century. But Religion today is way too good for dealing with retarded malformed nerds like you.
anyway
RELIGION OF THE MEDIEVAL TIMES WAS NOT CRUELER THAN POLITICS IN THE MEDIEVAL TIMES.
THE ATHEIST THESIS:
Apparently there is no imaginary man in the sky, no god, no religion was ever necessary, its all fraud and everything is as simple as fuck. OK ! That converted em all. FUCK YEA ! ! ! !
@zloben9000 Excuse me, but the childish name calling is not needed here and it does not help make your point, unless the point is that people with another point of view piss you off.
I agree that religion and politics was and is on par with each other. I've always seem religion as the other politics, the superstitious one that, in the west, pretty much lost out to the secular one.
Your "theist thesis" is correct as well, mostly. There is no evidence for a god, it's delusional, fiction.
@zloben9000 I should add that for those religions that do not promote dangerous and barbaric practices, that most atheists and even other theists would not bother with them except maybe to challenge them on their facts. If people want to make up stories of people and places and things that inspire them to do good, then fine. If they want to promote those stories in the marketplace of ideas, also fine. But once they start imposing those ideas on others then that is not fine and must be resisted.
This sounds like it was a wonderful event, and I'm sad that I couldn't have been there, but it is hard to describe how happy it makes me to see this happening. Just the fact that the atheist community is obviously growing gives me so much hope for the future. Youtube was the place where I turned from an undecided agnostic to what I would call an "agnostic atheist" as described by AronRa. It really changed my life, and I'm happy to see it's still happening all over the world.
Going to the point of Islam, it seems to me that the Atheist community, online at least, is crossing the "line in the sand" on targeting Islam in the sense that the taboo has just recently been crossed and it is now becoming acceptable to target Islam along side Christianity and other faiths, tho this having been said there is still a long way to go on this point both online and in the real world.
@TheElMoIsEviL-It isn't "emotional Atheists" I dislike but rather Nationalism
I see that from many atheist. Maybe it isn't exactly nationalism, but it's along the same lines. I've had atheist imply I'm a bigot when I speak against human rights abuses against women, gays, and apostates in sharia dominated cultures because according to them I should be more concerned with those issues in America. How can they argue that abortion, and gay marriage rights trumps people being stoned to death?
I think people have a real problem distinguishing between the Hitleresque burning of books to prevent the spread of knowledge, and burning books to say I don't respect this book, and it's contents will not control me. The argument can be made that because the average person is too stupid to see the difference it's best not to do it, but it's ridiculous to in any way for a rational person to consider them synonymous.
I'd burn a book that promoted the burning of books to stop the spread of ideas of which 'the powers that be' did not agree with... but maybe that is a bit too ironic?
I also believe we should be completely intolerant of intolerance, in order to protect our tolerant society, otherwise they win. You see it is the same logic. There is always an exception to the rule, which of course proves this rule.
Great video - Science doesn't know everything, but religion knows nothing.
Dawkins saved it with his "just a cracker" remark. The P.C. people need to realize that all religion is evil and deserves no respect from anyone. If someone burn a book on Physics, I won't care one bit because it's just a book. Someone burns a religious book we get all kinds of wackos screaming all kinds of idiotic things. The religious books mess with people's minds, and in my opinion THOSE types of things SHOULD be burned regularly.
I think that the majority of the mainstream Atheist community are pansies when it comes to Islam.
When Christians say that rape victims should be forced to go through with the pregnancy, Atheists are up in arms (and rightly so).
But when Muslims say that rape victims should be either whipped several dozen times, or stoned to death, the mainstream Atheist community start making excuses for the barbaric culture, and talking about "tolerance"for it.
@SinnFein4ever Well said, I'm tempted to elaborate, but it's become all too tiresome getting slammed and buried over and over under the avalanche of Thunderfoot haters and P.C., knee jerk - 'tolerance' addicts among the Atheist community.
...Oh, the irony, the unmitigated irony of it all.
Or they'll say it's happening in some foreign country not mine, and the only reason you care is because you're a bigot. I'm sorry, but as a member of the human race first and foremost I can't help but recognize that from a human right standpoint what women, gays, and non-believers suffer in sharia dominated cultures trumps what they suffer under modern western culture, and should be given equal if not greater priority.
It's that attitude that my comment is a reaction to. If you're more interested in fighting for gay marriage rights in America than women's rights in Egypt, or Saudi Arabia fine, but don't tell me that I should care about what you care about. If you missed my point, and I'm not sure, then you missed the context of the comment I was replying to.
@SinnFein4ever "I think that the majority of the mainstream Atheist community are pansies when it comes to Islam."
Bullshit. You know it's possible to be against Islam and still think that ThunderF00t is handling it wrong. TF isn't perfect, he isn't a god or prophet, so please stop treating him like one.
"...the mainstream Atheist community start making excuses for the barbaric culture, and talking about "tolerance"for it. "
...What the hell atheists are YOU talking about? Many of the high profile atheists I've seen (PZ Myers, Jen McCreight, Rebecca Watson) rage EASILY as loudly about those muslims and what they say about women and rape victims.
@June28July I don't know much either but there's plenty who make excuses for muslims wanting to stone rape victims. You see, that's not something only the radical muslims vouch on. How many times have you heard a muslim say rape victims brought it on themselves? Chances are it wasn't what you perceive as a "radical" muslim who said it, but just your average muslim.
But any Muslim who would say such a thing is one I define to be a radical Muslim. The ones who oppose it whom I have had the pleasure to know I view to be moderate Muslims.
fematheistchick-"Mine was just a respectful stick figure". ...bleccchh. Trying so hard to stay P.C., and also stick her toe into expressing her opinion.
@FreeOneSolo Ahh you slow bastard. I know Islam is not a race you simple minded cretin. Pat Condell is a racist a nationalist and a xenophobe. Your simpering approval of his impotent rage is indicative of your character, something you should change. Regarding your last question, no thanks you're not my type.
@sensur1 you do not have to justify drawing anything... that's the whole point... its not that its ok to draw Muhammad because you can freely draw Jesus. Its perfectly fine to draw anything regardless of what any religious group may argue.
AronRa made his point well, and Rebecca pretty much too here. For me it's not the case of offence - it's that alongside religion there is the widespread problem of racism and nationalism, stemming from xenophobia. I'm not gonna support bigotry. It's one thing to show how stupid a belief is (by eating a cracker or burning a hard-drive) and a completely different thing to vilify all muslims / beleivers as idiots etc.
I personally have no issue with people burning a science book, bible or ko'ran. I think what makes it a less successful message than draw Mohammed day is that it is anti-social to burn things anyway, unlike drawing which can be done anywhere.
@roadkill1001 how is it anti social to burn stuff? Things are getting burned each day and no one seems to mind. Publishers destroy books every day and so do libraries. People throw books in the trash every single day and that's perfectly fine. Its the moment you start elevating books into something sacred that religious people actually have a platform their particular book into something extra sacred.
I dont believe you got the actual meassage Thunderfoot tried to convey. Most actually didnt.
@SquirrelFromGradLife You have to understand the difference between doing something in public and private. Burning a book in public, such as a park would be considered anti-social. I don't really care about binning of books because it is not considered anti-social to use a bin in any respect, but the point is about BURNING an object, not binning it.
You may not believe it but I do fully understand TF's message, I just don't see it as effective as Draw mo day.
@roadkill1001 So you're saying there's a difference in the public manner of which a certain action is done? I can not see that theres any difference in doing something in private or in public and from a logical perspective it makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe that to be the case with Thunderfoots harddrive in mind because that was burned in a very private setting.
The question is rather how easily people want to be offended and their double standards and he highlights that.
@SquirrelFromGradLife You cannot draw a distinction between doing something in private from public? Go outdoors and have a wank on the pavement in clear sight...
As I have said before, I understand his message and what he is trying to accomplish. I have no issue with people burning ko'ran/bible/science books.
All I state, the difference between drawing and burning is that burning things is more anti-social than drawing things, which makes the message less effective as the act is anti-social.
@roadkill1001 Wanking... really... was that just a brain fart or had it any relation to anything?..
you just went of the deep end.
and for the anti social part, the original Muhammad drawings got embassies burned down and people killed, cartoonists got death threats and some were attacked in their home and at lectures... the reaction to burning the Quran was a shrug on the shoulder..
Skepchick's statement that a peaceful image proves your point better misses that her point is not my point or anyone else's point. There are plenty of reasons to draw Muhammad in a variety of ways. Some may use the day to exercise their freedom as fully and provocatively as they can, to demonstrate that freedom is not a quaint little social experiment but an all-encompassing philosophy with as few limits attached to it as possible.
@kreskinkun Surely any expression of speech may have multiple "points". Yes you can draw pictures of Muhammad (and by extension all arabs/muslims) with bombs strapped on and fucking donkeys. One point is you have a right to do that with no limitations.
The other point is that other people can call you a dick for doing it, or disagree with your message, even if they're atheists. I think there should be multiple messages going out there.
@8DX Indeed. Some people want to be dicks, though, and the right to risk being seen as dick is I think a great litmus for the amount of freedom we should have.
Skepchick, what's wrong with drawing Mohammed as a pedophile?
The Koran does say he married Aisha when she was six or seven years old, and fucked her when she was nine. As they put it, "the marriage was consummated", but I don't like that. "Mohammed fucked a nine year old" sounds properly offensive, as it should for such an atrocious act.
If that's not pedophilia then I don't know what is.
@IvanAndreevich You are right, you dont know what pedophilia is. Why dont you look it up on wiki. Having sex with a child does not make one a pedophile. To be a pedophile you have to attracted mainly or solely to children. Hetero doesnt turn to gay by just having gay sex. At most he would be a bisexual and he could still be hetero. people can act against their desires.
@Darvinisti Give me a plausible reason why Mohammed didn't want to have sex with a young girl, but forced himself to anyway. He could have waited for 5 more years.
@Darvinisti I am asking you for a plausible rational argument, and your response is that no rational argument will change my mind? You are wrong. A valid rational argument will almost certainly change my mind, as it does very often. I am frequently wrong, and I like to re-adjust my views based on new evidence.
You are implying that Mo acted against his desires while having sex with a child. I can't imagine why he would do that, and it seems like you can't either. Your argument fails.
@IvanAndreevich I gave you one allready and you ignored. Instead you clinged to an irrelevant part. I dont belive he acted against his desires. That never was my argument for why he wasnt a pedophile. Argument for why he wasnt a pedophile should be obvious: 12 adult wifes!
@IvanAndreevich "If that's not pedophilia then I don't know what is."
True, but I think her point is that if you want to win people over, then you still have to keep it clean. If you do that, then there will be people who realize that forbidding such drawings is silly. But, if you don't, they will look at your drawing and say, "See, this is why we forbid the drawing of the Prophet!" It is wrong to the extent that it could be counter-productive to the goal of DMD.
@TheMidwestAtheist Can truth ever be called "hateful"? Muslims fully accept that story about Mohammed, but they must bend over backwards to make it seem alright. It's good to show them that it ain't, and you can't pick and choose.
Out of all the major sins (murder, adultery, etc) the Koran lists unbelief is the worst one. So, me and you would be the first to get stoned to death simply for thinking for ourselves. Are you really concerned about offending people who think it's OK?
@IvanAndreevich Actually pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescents. There's no way to know really if he had a preference for young girls. (pedophilia is mental, not about actions taken.) And technically he wasn't a child molester either, since her parents gave consent(legal at the time). But hey, if you want to define a 'pedophile' as someone that had sex with a child, and you want to piss off a muslim, "Mohammed was a pedophile" works really well.
@TheOJDrinker So what exactly are you saying - Mohammed wasn't attracted to and didn't want to have sex with a nine year old, but he forced himself to? For what plausible reasons?
If a child's parents give someone permission to molest their child it doesn't make it OK. I do understand that it, perhaps, wasn't that unusual back then. However, Muslims consider the Koran the literal word of god, and Mohammed forever perfect.
To that I say - hell no. 99% of people today are more moral.
@TheOJDrinker Molesting is defined by the the parties involved in the sex. Only person whos consent matters is the one to whom the sexual act is made to. Parents can molest their own children too.
@IvanAndreevich Well, it is certainly child abuse, pedophilia is slightly different and it is harder to discern if he was actually a pedophile or not - but point taken. I'd actually be more understanding of it if it turned out he was a clinically-diagnosable pedophile. Otherwise he's just a child abuser/rapist.
@Pandonodrim More understanding if he had doctors pass. You people make me sick with your clichemorals. It more ok to rape a child if you are really in to it then to rape a child because... (place your irrational reason here)
@Darvinisti No, that's not at all what I said, so please stop putting words in my mouth. The one offense I will not tolerate is people claiming I said something I did not.
A pedophile acting on his or her desires is committing child abuse, but a person committing child abuse is not, necessarily, a pedophile. That is all I'm addressing here. A pedophile is mentally ill, but they do not, necessarily, have any intentions of ill will towards the child. They, literally, "love" the child.
@Darvinisti Does that excuse their behavior if they act on such urges? Absolutely not! It doesn't matter what's wrong with you - you still have to be held accountable for your actions. So please don't suggest that I am trying to excuse child abuse in any way - I would never do that.
All I was saying is that knowing that Mohammed committed child abuse does not equate to him being a pedophile - there is a distinction.
@Darvinisti Also try to understand: understanding does not equate to acceptance. Knowing the reasons and motivations behind an act does not mean you condone the act - it means you seek the motivation and cause behind it. This is simply responsible, and is the only way in which you can address the cause of a problem.
@Pandonodrim I know what understanding means, but I also know how it is often used and that the literal use was more illogical in this case. When a man has 13 wifes and once has sex with a child its moer puzzling if he is a pedophile. Then you would somehow have to explain the other 12 wifes and why he kept the child bride after she was no longer a child. Its much more understantable that he was straight who jumped the gun with very pretty girl.
@Darvinisti Yeah, that's it exactly. It would be more puzzling in general. However, his motivation for having sex with a sexually immature girl would be more explainable if he was a pedophile (his urges/motivation would be understood). What I was saying is that this does not seem evident and we have no reason to believe he was (like you said, 12 other wives, etc.). So was he just some misogynistic bastard who enjoyed the occasional abuse of young girls? Who knows for sure...
@Pandonodrim Okey, do you know what bastard means? =) Youre being more illogical. If you understand that pedohpile loves children in a sexual way and thats the reason for their sexual attemps on children, then why do you suppose the opposite on someone who isnt a pedophile but could have some pedophilic tendensies? Its like you would suppose bisexual man to be a misandric because he had sex with another man.
@Darvinisti No, unless he enjoys sexual abusing other men. Consensual sex is different from taking sexual advantage of another, regardless of severity. I would not disagree that someone could have pedophiliac tendencies without being an all-out pedophile. I suppose the distinction lies in what the person gets out of it: pleasure from a literal, sexual attraction to a child or pleasure from causing pain to a child or through domination, whatever. It's not an easy analysis in any regard.
@Darvinisti From what I know of studies of pedophiles (there need to be many more) pedophiles have a set sexual attraction to sexually undeveloped children - so much so that they find sexually developed people unattractive. I do not know to what extent this is true, either in general or if there is a range similar to the Kinsey scale... It is an important question.
@Pandonodrim You dont need studies to know that. That is the definition of pedophile. You could need studies to show that there are pedophiles. Anyway, whats your point?
@Darvinisti No, I meant studies of pedophiles to more fully understand the condition/disease/whatever. My point was just your use of the word pedophile in relation to Mohammed. I'm just not sure it is applicable - "child abuser" may be more accurate.
Since when is atheism anything more than a lack of a belief in god? Only when it becomes a delusional, self-righteous, circle jerk. For all of that, one might as well join a church and debate the number of angels that can sit on the head of a pin, while deriding those that don't follow your own particular brand of cult following.
Communicating atheism should not involve anything more than 6 words "I do not believe in god". Anything more than that, is arrogance.
I haven't thought much about book burning since middle school, so I guess my feelings are a little distant concerning this issue, but a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction "BOOK BURNING BAD!"... but it's usually done as censorship, isn't it? In the past, that's all it COULD be. But Thunderf00t's book-burning was symbolism. A statement. And it was structured so that it could not possibly function as a censoring act. In this light, I fully support it.
GuacamoleKun 2 weeks ago
Dawkins: God, AronRa: Jesus Christ
lloydduggan92 3 weeks ago
I am so disappointed I missed this as I would have loved to be there, and meet those who I consider heroes. AronRa and Richard Dawkins do so much for us atheists.
rdunire 3 months ago in playlist Communicating Atheism
AronRa, What about the effectiveness of film? Ben Stein shamelessly pushed intelligent design with "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Is that just another case of Hollywood funding religious movies or was there something deeper and more sinister involved?
kaduisaui 4 months ago
AronRa for Texas governor!
adambomb30 5 months ago
Yeah! Making manking better with youtube videos!
Just kidding. I agree with Aron Ra. I´m just glad they do. If they didn´t, I´d still be a mindless zealot...
moonlightavenger 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of the law of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature. Read my popular Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. There are no fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
An excellent discussion i watched from part 1 to 7. To put my "positive language" into it, Pro-evidence, Yes to free thought, Pro-freedom, pro-critical thinking, pro-morals without faith, pro-rights, and pro-accountability. Which i think all are parts of the "atheist movement" and that we can all get behind that don't state right out that religion is non-sense or give a false impression of what most of us are really for.
TheRantingsofaMadman 7 months ago
@TheRantingsofaMadman oops missed a comma (correction "get behind, that don't")
TheRantingsofaMadman 7 months ago
@TheRantingsofaMadman
i too support these positions.
nice sum.
turtledragon420 6 months ago
I also love the irony of your own side being able to point out your mistakes more than the theists. ^^
Here they are banging against the wall of our arguments for decades, not being able to move a brick, and in the meantime we're knocking our own arguments down and rebuilding them three times over. :P
Mithcoriel 7 months ago 3
Really nice series.
PawnBACM 7 months ago
Hey, my question (second last) was edited out :( :P
djpob 7 months ago
@djpob I did not think I had omitted any questions. What was yours?
AronRa 7 months ago
@AronRa Sorry my mistake it's in part 6 I just missed it somehow. Thanks for replying though! (for the record I was the one who asked Tom about what he meant by weak atheist)
djpob 7 months ago
@NephllimFree aww, how disappointing... I was hoping you were the real neph, been wanting to clown that fool ever since he blocked me from his channel.
ultimategoobah 7 months ago
Once again Skepchic steps in it up to her thigh. /sigh Responding with physical violence to a drawing, no matter what that drawing is, proves the point. Period. Nothing else need be said. How many christians and muslims have responded with violence and property destruction over art they didn't like? I can think of at least one instance for both. Now, how many atheists and agnostics have responded in kind to art they don't like BECAUSE OF their disbelief? Zero.
LordSlag 7 months ago
Hunting down, taking, and burning other peoples books is censorship. Burning your own copy, or a harddrive, aint
Kennethah81 7 months ago 3
I think Tf00t is getting more hate because he said he’s happy to lie for atheism then for burring the hardrive which I though was a beautiful bit of satirical comedy. I think it since a large number of the atheists on this sight talk about lies for Jebus as what deconverted them.
hens0w 8 months ago
Can anyone else hear " i want mommy" on the background at about 6:35 ish?, im watching it on iphone with headphones
SANHEDRIN666 8 months ago
Every single Atheist debate and seminar, Science lecture and event, He is there, in the background, on a panel, behind a podium or in the audience. It's unreal. I'm beginning to doubt Atheism in favour of the idea that Richard Dawkins is God.
JaySmith91 8 months ago
It shows the lack of self esteem these guests have; to figure that 'the only person who can think is an atheist. ' Being there are many questions that I have posed to Aron Ra and to the likes of a Richard Dawkins; questions "us scientists" who are actually involved in epistemology have never come to conclusions on yet, but Richard Dawkins and his great Atheist posse come to say it is all facts,
Not one time: have I seen a known regulator scientific fact that you have built off of
Aron sun god
mamaschristmasbunny 8 months ago
To Aron Ra's credit and a couple other Atheist sites that I peruse from time to time. I appreciate that I have never been blocked or what else from your channel for my opposing view. As' I am a rare kind of Christian bird, as a Christian traveled theologian and a scientist who also studies in areas of Physics, quantum mechanics, philosophy, to any area hearkening one's intrinsic tendency.
I appreciate that Aron Ra. My mind has been changed for the better without the proclivity of Atheism.
mamaschristmasbunny 8 months ago
as if u shared the same table as dawkins!!
Trevor10 8 months ago
Quite right. Since when does speech or the written word however ill considered deserve a response of violence. Salmun Rushdie a subject of a country threatened by a Theocratic state. It should have elicited an economic embargo by the free world not tolerance of intolerance.
strangetranceoffaith 8 months ago
I love how entertained Dawkins was with the burning of a harddrive full of Korans!
LtShock 8 months ago
Absolutely!! Keep doing your thing Aronra!
wokkitout 8 months ago
One of the points that Thunderf00t made was that burning books nowadays isn't the seriously distructive act that it was in the past, because other copies of the book are still freely available. Burning the Qur'an in 2011 does not censor the Qur'an. A book burning in the information age can only be symbolic.
RickySTT 8 months ago
On atheists correcting each others' errors, case in point: when Melchiorre erroneously cited Malcolm X as the founder of the Black Panther Party, the YouTube commenters pounced on it immediately.
RickySTT 8 months ago
@NephllimFree Nice to know are you finally in touch with reallity sporty..keep up with the therapy .
BlueThundeAcer2000 8 months ago
@NephllimFree No one listens to you anymore. All you're still getting is pity - and rightfully so. Get professional help.
KaroKoenich 8 months ago
@NephllimFree
''I challenge any of you atheist to a debate..... about anything''
Send AronRa a video response to any one of his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series, and be prepared to have your ass handed to you
OnTheFritz602 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OnTheFritz602 surely you mean "and be prepared to have your ass handed to you, *again*" :P
Direkin 8 months ago
I'll prove Aron right about people on our side correcting one another.
It's Joel Osteen, not Olsteen! :P
Hope you're chucking if you read this Aron, just having a few laughs! Btw, I've enjoyed this series. Keep up the brilliant work!
OnTheFritz602 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NephllimFree You aren't capable of debating.
ThePsychoReturns 8 months ago
@NephllimFree
Wow... Hi Nephie, I would love a Debate =^_^=
Ok! My debate will start off as a question
What is your opinion on Slavery?
I will define slavery as "One human being owning another human being as property"
I believe that Slavery is a horrible system that should be totally expunged from society, your thoughts?
BlankPicketSign 8 months ago
@NephllimFree Fuck off!
aldunamesaretaken 8 months ago
... from about the age of seven. this view held sway for centuries, with child prostitution remaining for many years until (western) society had developed to a point where they decided, just like with slavery, that it was morally wrong. My final point being Mohammed was not a paedophile because at the time he would not have viewed his child bride as a child. This only reinforces the view that the Qur'an (as well as all other holy books) are incredibly shitty things to base your morals off of.
HotelManagerRoyOats 8 months ago
@HotelManagerRoyOats
That's the same logic christians use to defend slavery in the bible. I don't think it truly matters whether it was accepted in their society or not, does it? It's not as if the actual action has changed over time. From our view it's still immoral.
Besides, we're talking about a guy who's supposedly a prophet, who knows what God thinks or something. One must wonder why he fits so closely to the barbarism of the time like everyone else if he was meant to be special.
Vire70 8 months ago
I don't think totally fair criticism of Mohammed to say he was a paedophile. By modern standards he surely was but the key word being 'modern'. This is because childhood and under age sex are both very recent concepts coming about only 150 years or so ago. For centuries in many civilisations, children were viewed as just small adults from a very young age, girls from about the age they could simply physically have sex. This is seen in Ancient Greek society with girls entering prostitution...
HotelManagerRoyOats 8 months ago
Atheist need to start their own religion, with AronRa as the Epop leader (he needs the money). We can keep God is Love, and going to Heaven, Treat others as you want them to treat you, donate to charity, be a good socialist, and basically re-create a better good natured god in our own image. Sunday to be a day of discovery of new things in science, with institutions of learning, like schools, museums, and the whole Universe a place for worship.
And never forget that God is an Atheist too.
EvolBob1 8 months ago
Thanks for the upload, I really enjoyed it.
ukmoore 8 months ago
@FreeOneSolo Actually seeing as you're such a moron I'll spell it out for you. You hero worship condell because you're a fool. You disgusting lying coward. Is that clear enough for you now dunce?
nilbud 8 months ago
CUT THIS SHIT! i demand hitchens!
rationalconscience 8 months ago
"We're doing this for free for the betterment of mankind."
(Richard Dawkins tries not to look uncomfortable.)
"Uhh... yeah." (light applause from him)
highwind8124 8 months ago
Who the fuck brings a kid to this thing?
salahhe 8 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL I don't even believe humans are a superior species.
scrubjay93 8 months ago
6:55 I thought he was about to say "...an enormous amount of shit."
:D
DrSpooglemon 8 months ago
who else skips as soon as Rebecca speaks.....
AndreLeCoz 8 months ago
You have 2 types of book burnings.
You burning as in censorship.
You have book burning such as the Koran or Bible which is desecration.
Decsecration is not censorship.
theshadowify 8 months ago 9
proud atheist right here
osiris3yhn 8 months ago
I enjoyed this series immensely, excellent discussion and great points. The internet is the both toughest and easiest forum in which to disseminate an idea. It depends on what format you choose. With live streaming channels becoming more mainstream as bandwidth and networks mature, every dog can have his/her own internet TV channel.
malcolmry 8 months ago
Drawing Mohammed as a peadophile is *not* hateful. It says NOTHING of Muslims... It only comments on some of the stories in the Qua'ran.
Vortex42 8 months ago 20
@Vortex42 Yes. I agree. If Mohammed was alive today we would all consider him a pedophile. So, to comment on that is not hateful I think. Its just a sound objection to the morals of the historical figure Mohammed, who is still supposed to be a role model for Muslims living now.
FrozenPetrolPie 8 months ago
@Vortex42 u fool thats not gonna make muslims listem to you
FIGHTFANNERD3 8 months ago
@Vortex42 It's deliberately offensive though isn't it?
ashbash986 7 months ago
Agreed, good points were made, and I agree that the Internet is a great resource, which like Thunderf00t says, is where religions go to die.
As for the youtude community, I wonder it there is a way to collect the different contributors into something like channels as Vimeo does, and if failing that, maybe something outside of YT that can serve as a directory or review or some resource that helps people find the good stuff here.
Prelude610 8 months ago
A BUNCH OF ALL KNOWING HATERS
i dont believe in god, but i surely dislike the anti-god mediocre minds.
Religion exists YOU HATE THAT DON'T YOU :-) !!!
You make fun of the less evolved believers. I LIKE THAT.
zloben9000 8 months ago
@zloben9000 - dude, it's not so much haters as critics, and making fun of idiots can be fun and can help make a point, that's not the reason for all this. Suppose these people met to discuss ways to get the message out about a fairies and gnomes-based religion that holds and promotes dangerous and barbaric practices, would that be a hater thing? But if instead they went after actual, current religions for the same reasons, would that be hate?
Prelude610 8 months ago
@Prelude610 Oh yeaaa Religion "promotes dangerous and barbaric practices".
I know you live in the 12th century. But Religion today is way too good for dealing with retarded malformed nerds like you.
anyway
RELIGION OF THE MEDIEVAL TIMES WAS NOT CRUELER THAN POLITICS IN THE MEDIEVAL TIMES.
THE ATHEIST THESIS:
Apparently there is no imaginary man in the sky, no god, no religion was ever necessary, its all fraud and everything is as simple as fuck. OK ! That converted em all. FUCK YEA ! ! ! !
zloben9000 8 months ago
@zloben9000 Excuse me, but the childish name calling is not needed here and it does not help make your point, unless the point is that people with another point of view piss you off.
I agree that religion and politics was and is on par with each other. I've always seem religion as the other politics, the superstitious one that, in the west, pretty much lost out to the secular one.
Your "theist thesis" is correct as well, mostly. There is no evidence for a god, it's delusional, fiction.
Prelude610 8 months ago
@zloben9000 I should add that for those religions that do not promote dangerous and barbaric practices, that most atheists and even other theists would not bother with them except maybe to challenge them on their facts. If people want to make up stories of people and places and things that inspire them to do good, then fine. If they want to promote those stories in the marketplace of ideas, also fine. But once they start imposing those ideas on others then that is not fine and must be resisted.
Prelude610 8 months ago
This sounds like it was a wonderful event, and I'm sad that I couldn't have been there, but it is hard to describe how happy it makes me to see this happening. Just the fact that the atheist community is obviously growing gives me so much hope for the future. Youtube was the place where I turned from an undecided agnostic to what I would call an "agnostic atheist" as described by AronRa. It really changed my life, and I'm happy to see it's still happening all over the world.
rileed 8 months ago
Thank you for uploading these. You guys raised a couple of interesting points.
amulware 8 months ago
i like how every one has a glass of water but then we go down to richard dawkins and he has a 1 grand laptop
WAZZA1235 8 months ago
Going to the point of Islam, it seems to me that the Atheist community, online at least, is crossing the "line in the sand" on targeting Islam in the sense that the taboo has just recently been crossed and it is now becoming acceptable to target Islam along side Christianity and other faiths, tho this having been said there is still a long way to go on this point both online and in the real world.
najjhhan 8 months ago
lol who the hell brought their child to this boring adult talk..
Scraxs 8 months ago
@TheElMoIsEviL-It isn't "emotional Atheists" I dislike but rather Nationalism
I see that from many atheist. Maybe it isn't exactly nationalism, but it's along the same lines. I've had atheist imply I'm a bigot when I speak against human rights abuses against women, gays, and apostates in sharia dominated cultures because according to them I should be more concerned with those issues in America. How can they argue that abortion, and gay marriage rights trumps people being stoned to death?
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
I think people have a real problem distinguishing between the Hitleresque burning of books to prevent the spread of knowledge, and burning books to say I don't respect this book, and it's contents will not control me. The argument can be made that because the average person is too stupid to see the difference it's best not to do it, but it's ridiculous to in any way for a rational person to consider them synonymous.
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago 2
@TheNakedAtheist
I'd burn a book that promoted the burning of books to stop the spread of ideas of which 'the powers that be' did not agree with... but maybe that is a bit too ironic?
I also believe we should be completely intolerant of intolerance, in order to protect our tolerant society, otherwise they win. You see it is the same logic. There is always an exception to the rule, which of course proves this rule.
Great video - Science doesn't know everything, but religion knows nothing.
EvolBob1 8 months ago
Dawkins saved it with his "just a cracker" remark. The P.C. people need to realize that all religion is evil and deserves no respect from anyone. If someone burn a book on Physics, I won't care one bit because it's just a book. Someone burns a religious book we get all kinds of wackos screaming all kinds of idiotic things. The religious books mess with people's minds, and in my opinion THOSE types of things SHOULD be burned regularly.
datastreamer 8 months ago 2
Thunderfoot is AWEsome!
I think that the majority of the mainstream Atheist community are pansies when it comes to Islam.
When Christians say that rape victims should be forced to go through with the pregnancy, Atheists are up in arms (and rightly so).
But when Muslims say that rape victims should be either whipped several dozen times, or stoned to death, the mainstream Atheist community start making excuses for the barbaric culture, and talking about "tolerance"for it.
SinnFein4ever 8 months ago 10
@SinnFein4ever Well said, I'm tempted to elaborate, but it's become all too tiresome getting slammed and buried over and over under the avalanche of Thunderfoot haters and P.C., knee jerk - 'tolerance' addicts among the Atheist community.
...Oh, the irony, the unmitigated irony of it all.
InternalCompass 8 months ago
@InternalCompass
Please elaborate.
June28July 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
@SinnFein4ever
Or they'll say it's happening in some foreign country not mine, and the only reason you care is because you're a bigot. I'm sorry, but as a member of the human race first and foremost I can't help but recognize that from a human right standpoint what women, gays, and non-believers suffer in sharia dominated cultures trumps what they suffer under modern western culture, and should be given equal if not greater priority.
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago 2
@TheNakedAtheist Sure, it's the I care about bigger suffering than you do, so your suffering doesn't exist and oh by the way fuck you mine is bigger.
khote14 8 months ago
@khote14
It's that attitude that my comment is a reaction to. If you're more interested in fighting for gay marriage rights in America than women's rights in Egypt, or Saudi Arabia fine, but don't tell me that I should care about what you care about. If you missed my point, and I'm not sure, then you missed the context of the comment I was replying to.
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
@SinnFein4ever "I think that the majority of the mainstream Atheist community are pansies when it comes to Islam."
Bullshit. You know it's possible to be against Islam and still think that ThunderF00t is handling it wrong. TF isn't perfect, he isn't a god or prophet, so please stop treating him like one.
"...the mainstream Atheist community start making excuses for the barbaric culture, and talking about "tolerance"for it. "
Citation needed, please cite your source.
mortensjoegren 8 months ago
@SinnFein4ever
...What the hell atheists are YOU talking about? Many of the high profile atheists I've seen (PZ Myers, Jen McCreight, Rebecca Watson) rage EASILY as loudly about those muslims and what they say about women and rape victims.
samsoneffect 8 months ago
@SinnFein4ever
I don't know one Atheist who makes excuses for radical Muslims wanting to stone rape victims.
June28July 8 months ago
@June28July I don't know much either but there's plenty who make excuses for muslims wanting to stone rape victims. You see, that's not something only the radical muslims vouch on. How many times have you heard a muslim say rape victims brought it on themselves? Chances are it wasn't what you perceive as a "radical" muslim who said it, but just your average muslim.
byteresistor 8 months ago
@byteresistor
But any Muslim who would say such a thing is one I define to be a radical Muslim. The ones who oppose it whom I have had the pleasure to know I view to be moderate Muslims.
June28July 8 months ago
fematheistchick-"Mine was just a respectful stick figure". ...bleccchh. Trying so hard to stay P.C., and also stick her toe into expressing her opinion.
216trixie 8 months ago
@FreeOneSolo Ahh you slow bastard. I know Islam is not a race you simple minded cretin. Pat Condell is a racist a nationalist and a xenophobe. Your simpering approval of his impotent rage is indicative of your character, something you should change. Regarding your last question, no thanks you're not my type.
nilbud 8 months ago
I fast-forward every time she talks.lol
vodoojeff 8 months ago
Very nice.
Dawkins didn't mention the bitch slapping incident in 0:50 of "Whaddya say Ray", did he? That would have been awkward.
KarlHeinzofWpg 8 months ago
great discussion here, enjoyed it.
AmorBravo 8 months ago
I would love to listen to a conversation about biology between AronRa and Dawkins to see them sitting at the same table gave me a woody nerd pecker.
baxtar1963 8 months ago
6:00
GET A HOLD OF YOUR GODDAMN KID.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 8 months ago 2
The guy who shouted "absolutely" got a few evil stares.
ChiefRepublic 8 months ago
@ChiefRepublic I know, it was me!
skyzthelimi7 8 months ago
@skyzthelimi7 You were absolutely correct.
nilbud 8 months ago
why is PZ Myers standing in the back? he should have taken thomas' place on the panel...
Meskiagkasher 8 months ago
Why would any omnipotent and omniscient deity create a man called Aron-Ra, that would be religious suicide?
Dwicker64 8 months ago 4
Dawkins and Aronra on the same panel. AWESOME!!!!!!
iaov 8 months ago
@iaov the other two...not so much
scrubjay93 8 months ago
If its ok to draw raptor jesus or zombie jesus, then surely its ok to draw mohammed with a bomb on his head.
sensur1 8 months ago
@sensur1 you do not have to justify drawing anything... that's the whole point... its not that its ok to draw Muhammad because you can freely draw Jesus. Its perfectly fine to draw anything regardless of what any religious group may argue.
SquirrelFromGradLife 8 months ago
Burning the hardrive was clever.
HorridDreams 8 months ago
This was wonderful. I watched all seven parts.
JulesManson 8 months ago
AronRa made his point well, and Rebecca pretty much too here. For me it's not the case of offence - it's that alongside religion there is the widespread problem of racism and nationalism, stemming from xenophobia. I'm not gonna support bigotry. It's one thing to show how stupid a belief is (by eating a cracker or burning a hard-drive) and a completely different thing to vilify all muslims / beleivers as idiots etc.
8DX 8 months ago 2
I personally have no issue with people burning a science book, bible or ko'ran. I think what makes it a less successful message than draw Mohammed day is that it is anti-social to burn things anyway, unlike drawing which can be done anywhere.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001 how is it anti social to burn stuff? Things are getting burned each day and no one seems to mind. Publishers destroy books every day and so do libraries. People throw books in the trash every single day and that's perfectly fine. Its the moment you start elevating books into something sacred that religious people actually have a platform their particular book into something extra sacred.
I dont believe you got the actual meassage Thunderfoot tried to convey. Most actually didnt.
SquirrelFromGradLife 8 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife You have to understand the difference between doing something in public and private. Burning a book in public, such as a park would be considered anti-social. I don't really care about binning of books because it is not considered anti-social to use a bin in any respect, but the point is about BURNING an object, not binning it.
You may not believe it but I do fully understand TF's message, I just don't see it as effective as Draw mo day.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001 So you're saying there's a difference in the public manner of which a certain action is done? I can not see that theres any difference in doing something in private or in public and from a logical perspective it makes absolutely no sense. I do not believe that to be the case with Thunderfoots harddrive in mind because that was burned in a very private setting.
The question is rather how easily people want to be offended and their double standards and he highlights that.
SquirrelFromGradLife 8 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife You cannot draw a distinction between doing something in private from public? Go outdoors and have a wank on the pavement in clear sight...
As I have said before, I understand his message and what he is trying to accomplish. I have no issue with people burning ko'ran/bible/science books.
All I state, the difference between drawing and burning is that burning things is more anti-social than drawing things, which makes the message less effective as the act is anti-social.
roadkill1001 8 months ago
@roadkill1001 Wanking... really... was that just a brain fart or had it any relation to anything?..
you just went of the deep end.
and for the anti social part, the original Muhammad drawings got embassies burned down and people killed, cartoonists got death threats and some were attacked in their home and at lectures... the reaction to burning the Quran was a shrug on the shoulder..
SquirrelFromGradLife 8 months ago
Skepchick's statement that a peaceful image proves your point better misses that her point is not my point or anyone else's point. There are plenty of reasons to draw Muhammad in a variety of ways. Some may use the day to exercise their freedom as fully and provocatively as they can, to demonstrate that freedom is not a quaint little social experiment but an all-encompassing philosophy with as few limits attached to it as possible.
kreskinkun 8 months ago
@kreskinkun Surely any expression of speech may have multiple "points". Yes you can draw pictures of Muhammad (and by extension all arabs/muslims) with bombs strapped on and fucking donkeys. One point is you have a right to do that with no limitations.
The other point is that other people can call you a dick for doing it, or disagree with your message, even if they're atheists. I think there should be multiple messages going out there.
8DX 8 months ago
@8DX Indeed. Some people want to be dicks, though, and the right to risk being seen as dick is I think a great litmus for the amount of freedom we should have.
kreskinkun 8 months ago
Will someone shut that brat up (at 06:20)
I mean, really. Who brings their 7 years olds to a debate or discussion?
Domzdream 8 months ago
Rofl dpr looks like Glenn Beck in that picture.
Brewhahh 8 months ago
"head-bobbing, mouth-breathing, glassy-eyed wannabelievers" is there a t-shirt of that?
AidanTAKFW 8 months ago
Skepchick, what's wrong with drawing Mohammed as a pedophile?
The Koran does say he married Aisha when she was six or seven years old, and fucked her when she was nine. As they put it, "the marriage was consummated", but I don't like that. "Mohammed fucked a nine year old" sounds properly offensive, as it should for such an atrocious act.
If that's not pedophilia then I don't know what is.
IvanAndreevich 8 months ago 32
@IvanAndreevich You are right, you dont know what pedophilia is. Why dont you look it up on wiki. Having sex with a child does not make one a pedophile. To be a pedophile you have to attracted mainly or solely to children. Hetero doesnt turn to gay by just having gay sex. At most he would be a bisexual and he could still be hetero. people can act against their desires.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti Give me a plausible reason why Mohammed didn't want to have sex with a young girl, but forced himself to anyway. He could have waited for 5 more years.
IvanAndreevich 8 months ago
@IvanAndreevich No rational argument will change your mind. Otherwise you wouldnt have clinged to the irrelevant part.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti I am asking you for a plausible rational argument, and your response is that no rational argument will change my mind? You are wrong. A valid rational argument will almost certainly change my mind, as it does very often. I am frequently wrong, and I like to re-adjust my views based on new evidence.
You are implying that Mo acted against his desires while having sex with a child. I can't imagine why he would do that, and it seems like you can't either. Your argument fails.
IvanAndreevich 8 months ago
@IvanAndreevich I gave you one allready and you ignored. Instead you clinged to an irrelevant part. I dont belive he acted against his desires. That never was my argument for why he wasnt a pedophile. Argument for why he wasnt a pedophile should be obvious: 12 adult wifes!
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@IvanAndreevich "If that's not pedophilia then I don't know what is."
True, but I think her point is that if you want to win people over, then you still have to keep it clean. If you do that, then there will be people who realize that forbidding such drawings is silly. But, if you don't, they will look at your drawing and say, "See, this is why we forbid the drawing of the Prophet!" It is wrong to the extent that it could be counter-productive to the goal of DMD.
TheMidwestAtheist 8 months ago
@TheMidwestAtheist Can truth ever be called "hateful"? Muslims fully accept that story about Mohammed, but they must bend over backwards to make it seem alright. It's good to show them that it ain't, and you can't pick and choose.
Out of all the major sins (murder, adultery, etc) the Koran lists unbelief is the worst one. So, me and you would be the first to get stoned to death simply for thinking for ourselves. Are you really concerned about offending people who think it's OK?
IvanAndreevich 8 months ago
@IvanAndreevich Actually pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescents. There's no way to know really if he had a preference for young girls. (pedophilia is mental, not about actions taken.) And technically he wasn't a child molester either, since her parents gave consent(legal at the time). But hey, if you want to define a 'pedophile' as someone that had sex with a child, and you want to piss off a muslim, "Mohammed was a pedophile" works really well.
TheOJDrinker 8 months ago
@TheOJDrinker So what exactly are you saying - Mohammed wasn't attracted to and didn't want to have sex with a nine year old, but he forced himself to? For what plausible reasons?
If a child's parents give someone permission to molest their child it doesn't make it OK. I do understand that it, perhaps, wasn't that unusual back then. However, Muslims consider the Koran the literal word of god, and Mohammed forever perfect.
To that I say - hell no. 99% of people today are more moral.
IvanAndreevich 8 months ago
@TheOJDrinker Molesting is defined by the the parties involved in the sex. Only person whos consent matters is the one to whom the sexual act is made to. Parents can molest their own children too.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@IvanAndreevich Actually they don't say that at all, and I think you know they don't say that.
gamesbok 8 months ago
@IvanAndreevich Well, it is certainly child abuse, pedophilia is slightly different and it is harder to discern if he was actually a pedophile or not - but point taken. I'd actually be more understanding of it if it turned out he was a clinically-diagnosable pedophile. Otherwise he's just a child abuser/rapist.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Pandonodrim More understanding if he had doctors pass. You people make me sick with your clichemorals. It more ok to rape a child if you are really in to it then to rape a child because... (place your irrational reason here)
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti No, that's not at all what I said, so please stop putting words in my mouth. The one offense I will not tolerate is people claiming I said something I did not.
A pedophile acting on his or her desires is committing child abuse, but a person committing child abuse is not, necessarily, a pedophile. That is all I'm addressing here. A pedophile is mentally ill, but they do not, necessarily, have any intentions of ill will towards the child. They, literally, "love" the child.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Darvinisti Does that excuse their behavior if they act on such urges? Absolutely not! It doesn't matter what's wrong with you - you still have to be held accountable for your actions. So please don't suggest that I am trying to excuse child abuse in any way - I would never do that.
All I was saying is that knowing that Mohammed committed child abuse does not equate to him being a pedophile - there is a distinction.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Darvinisti Also try to understand: understanding does not equate to acceptance. Knowing the reasons and motivations behind an act does not mean you condone the act - it means you seek the motivation and cause behind it. This is simply responsible, and is the only way in which you can address the cause of a problem.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Pandonodrim I know what understanding means, but I also know how it is often used and that the literal use was more illogical in this case. When a man has 13 wifes and once has sex with a child its moer puzzling if he is a pedophile. Then you would somehow have to explain the other 12 wifes and why he kept the child bride after she was no longer a child. Its much more understantable that he was straight who jumped the gun with very pretty girl.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti Yeah, that's it exactly. It would be more puzzling in general. However, his motivation for having sex with a sexually immature girl would be more explainable if he was a pedophile (his urges/motivation would be understood). What I was saying is that this does not seem evident and we have no reason to believe he was (like you said, 12 other wives, etc.). So was he just some misogynistic bastard who enjoyed the occasional abuse of young girls? Who knows for sure...
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Pandonodrim Okey, do you know what bastard means? =) Youre being more illogical. If you understand that pedohpile loves children in a sexual way and thats the reason for their sexual attemps on children, then why do you suppose the opposite on someone who isnt a pedophile but could have some pedophilic tendensies? Its like you would suppose bisexual man to be a misandric because he had sex with another man.
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti No, unless he enjoys sexual abusing other men. Consensual sex is different from taking sexual advantage of another, regardless of severity. I would not disagree that someone could have pedophiliac tendencies without being an all-out pedophile. I suppose the distinction lies in what the person gets out of it: pleasure from a literal, sexual attraction to a child or pleasure from causing pain to a child or through domination, whatever. It's not an easy analysis in any regard.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Darvinisti From what I know of studies of pedophiles (there need to be many more) pedophiles have a set sexual attraction to sexually undeveloped children - so much so that they find sexually developed people unattractive. I do not know to what extent this is true, either in general or if there is a range similar to the Kinsey scale... It is an important question.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
@Pandonodrim You dont need studies to know that. That is the definition of pedophile. You could need studies to show that there are pedophiles. Anyway, whats your point?
Darvinisti 8 months ago
@Darvinisti No, I meant studies of pedophiles to more fully understand the condition/disease/whatever. My point was just your use of the word pedophile in relation to Mohammed. I'm just not sure it is applicable - "child abuser" may be more accurate.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
My response to Thunderf00t is to read and critically examine the Koran
AidanTAKFW 8 months ago
Thanks for posting these videos.
suferable 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge too true; environment's the foremost contributing factor to "producing muslims" since birth
We need to remedy this as atheists, in our own part of the world as well, as with Creationists and evangelicals
TAz69x 8 months ago
Drawing muhammad with his 9 year old wife is hateful? hmmm Skeptichick perhaps needs to BONE up on her Muhammad facts.
TruthSurge 8 months ago 3
@TruthSurge I agree; I for example just drew such a trait just to underline the dubious nature of Islam's fundamental architect and his ethics
I never intended any fucking hate against "muslims"
I have no damn clue why she misconstrued this generally known point for intention of hatred
DMoeD day is about fighting for freedom and openness to criticism, not about hate
TAz69x 8 months ago 7
Since when is atheism anything more than a lack of a belief in god? Only when it becomes a delusional, self-righteous, circle jerk. For all of that, one might as well join a church and debate the number of angels that can sit on the head of a pin, while deriding those that don't follow your own particular brand of cult following.
Communicating atheism should not involve anything more than 6 words "I do not believe in god". Anything more than that, is arrogance.
ravenslaves 8 months ago